It is well known to provide contactless payment cards in the standard ID-1 geometry (substantially 85.6×54 mm in planar extent). Such cards resemble conventional credit and debit cards in size and shape, and allow account holders to access debit or credit card accounts to pay for transactions by wireless communication between the contactless payment cards and proximity readers included in point of sale (POS) terminals.
Because of the wireless communication capability of these cards, it is feasible to enhance their convenience by shrinking their size, to perhaps one-half or one-third or less of the planar extent of the standard ID-1 geometry. In this reduced size, a contactless payment card may be carried as a fob on a key ring.
According to certain prior art proposals, it has been suggested that small contactless payment cards be integrated with handheld electronic devices such as mobile telephones. In one such proposal, the housing of a mobile telephone is configured to include one or more slots shaped and sized to receive small contactless payment cards. However, this approach requires coordination and cooperation with manufacturers of mobile telephones and/or with mobile telephone network operators. Also, if a slot or slots of a certain size are included in the mobile telephone housing, small contactless cards of other sizes would not be compatible with the mobile telephone. Still further, there may be significant added cost in modifying the mobile telephone design to accommodate contactless card slots.
In another prior art proposal, an adhesive layer is added to the rear of a contactless payment card, which may take the form of a somewhat flexible self-adhesive label. The card/label can then be adhered to the rear surface of a mobile telephone. One disadvantage with this approach may arise if the account holder wishes to replace the mobile telephone after attaching the payment card/label thereto. It may be difficult to remove the card/label from the mobile telephone housing, and may be impossible to attach the card/label to the cardholder's new mobile telephone. Also, if the account holder desires to change payment cards, the problem of removing the card/label from the mobile telephone housing again arises, and such removal may leave an adhesive residue on the mobile telephone housing. Still another disadvantage may arise if the account holder wishes to temporarily lend his/her mobile telephone to another individual, but does not wish to entrust his/her payment card to the individual.
Another possible disadvantage of the latter approach is that the layer of adhesive material on the card/label and/or the flexibility of the card/label may make it difficult to perform personalization processing on the card/label with conventional personalization equipment. Consequently, the cost of personalizing the card/label may be increased.